Fantasy Island - Are Republicans losing their grip on reality? (liberal hypocrisy writ large...)

At a press conference last week, someone asked Chris Christie for his views on evolution vs. creationism. "That's none of your business," the New Jersey governor barked in response.

...it says even more about the current state of the national Republican Party, where magical thinking trumps rationality, and even to acknowledge basic realities about the world we live in runs the risk of damaging one's political future.

Christie is not part of the natural constituency for Darwin-denial... (but) he must constantly ask himself the question: Am I about to say something to which a white, evangelical, socially conservative, gun-owning, Obama-despising, pro-Tea Party, GOP primary voter in rural South Carolina might object? By this standard, simple acceptance of the theory of evolution becomes a risky stance. To lie or to duck? Christie chose the option of ducking while signaling his annoyance at being put in this ridiculous predicament.

...Another series of Republican fictions relates to climate change. This starts, at one extreme, with the outright denial of Michele Bachmann, progressing through the various "not-man-made" and "the jury's-still-out" dodges offered by the likes of Sarah Palin and John Thune... The conservative press has gone after Newt Gingrich merely for saying the country must do something to address climate change. But if you're one of the conservatives who had the misfortune to accept science during the pre-Tea Party era, don't worry–you can still escape extinction by expressing doubt about any possible solution. This describes the position of Mitch Daniels; Mitt Romney; and Tim Pawlenty, who once supported cap-and-trade but has simply reversed himself, offering a self-flagellating apology and confession ("it was stupid").

...Republican candidates tried to find sly ways to signal skepticism about the President's American-ness and Christianity without sounding like complete imbeciles....

So it is ok at Slate to mock someone for believing that God created the world.

Also at Slate, they find it understandable that some candidates might have to hedge along proclaiming that God may have created the world to assuage some rube voters in the sticks (those Obama himself told an audience at a private fundraiser “cling to guns and religion” to excuse his own need to appeal to that segment of society on election day).

But if you put any religious litmus tests to Barack Hussein Obama, who's proclaimed proudly that he's learned from Islam on 4 continents, about his claims of being a Christian then you are a “birther” just trying to divide this nation, not trying to expose a religious fraud, a secular humanist who plays at being a Christian just to keep the black church going vote bloc.

I'd love it so much for someone, ANYONE to ask Barack Obama in public if he believes that Jesus Christ was crucified, died, and rose again to WALK AMONG MEN.

He loves to say that Jesus is a “historical figure” but is also on record saying that a belief in Jesus is not the only path to salvation in this world.

So I'd like to see him pinned down on this issue. Just to set the record straight.

If it's fair game to ask Romney about being Mormon (even though it's not a national question for Harry Reid) and it's okay to ask candidates about their views on creationism, then it is ok to press Obama on the resurrection.

“There is no conflict between TTOE and Christianity.”

There is tremendous conflict between the theory of evolution and Christianity.

According to the Bible:

God created Adam.
Adam sinned.
The Savior came to undo what occurred in the Garden.

1 John 3:8 says that the devil has been sinning from the beginning and that the reason Christ came was to destroy his work.

Christianity is founded on that principle and the Savior’s resurrection from the dead.

If you honestly look at the theory of evolution it is not science it is philosophy.

You can’t observe evolution, you can’t test it, you can’t repeat it and you can’t falsify it. Therefore it does not meet even one requirement of the Scientific Method.

What they do goes something like this:

“Evolution is true, so let’s go back and look at the evidence in light of the fact that evolution is true.”

There are only two ways we could have gotten here. Matter and energy sprang into existence from nothing or we were created.

The Bible says we were created by a Supernatural act.

Evolution says that there was nothing, then there was something, than there was an explosion, then there was a mud puddle, then a bunch of amino acids somehow got together and life began, then from that initial cell all of the species of plant, animal and human that exist today developed.

By science, you can’t prove either.... and no matter how loud and condescendingly Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers want to scream about it they have something in common with the emporer who had no clothes.

While tracking back to that passage, I also found these interesting old threads:

President Obama removes ‘Creator’ from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence
American Thinker ^ | September 18,2010 | Jason McNew
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2591789/posts
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..... endowed with certain unalienable rights, life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” After President Obama says “created equal...”, there is a long pause during which he scowls and blinks several times.

[Ask him about God as Creator at some townhall (he’s already on record about historically not liking this reference).]

Censoring Questions about Obama’s Religion
Gulag Bound ^ | August 27, 2010 | Cliff Kincaid
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2578664/posts
In a major liberal initiative to curtail discussion of President Obama’s religious identity, over 70 Christian leaders and denominational heads have signed a letter saying that questions about the religious philosophy of the President of the United States should be ignored and suppressed by the major media. The letter demands that the media “offer no further support or airtime to those who misrepresent and call into question the President’s Christian faith.” The apparent initiator of the letter is Obama associate Jim Wallis of the Sojourners group, a group funded by atheist George Soros.

[Since the Alinsky Left is going to use religion to mock and eliminate conservative candidates, best to leave ALL of those questions on the table for ALL candidates]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2111204/posts2004 Interview: Obama Talks about Jesus, Heaven and Sin June 3, 2008
CBN ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2111204/posts

In 2004, he gave an interview to Cathleen Falsani who was the religion reporter at the Chicago Sun-Times. I must say the whole interview is remarkable. Below are some parts of it where Obama talks about Jesus, heaven and sin. The whole interview can be read here.

(GG is God Girl aka Cathleen Falsani) GG: Who’s Jesus to you?

OBAMA: Right. Jesus is a historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

GG: The conversation stopper, when you say you’re a Christian and leave it at that.

OBAMA: Where do you move forward with that? This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.

GG: You don’t believe that?

OBAMA: I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup.

Part of the reason I think it’s always difficult for public figures to talk about this is that the nature of politics is that you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you. Oftentimes that’s by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest commong denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith, the more potentially dangerous it is.

GG: Do you believe in heaven?

OBAMA: Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings?

GG: A place spiritually you go to after you die?

OBAMA: What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.

When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.

GG: Do you believe in sin?

OBAMA: Yes.

GG: What is sin?

OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.

GG: What happens if you have sin in your life?

OBAMA: I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.

>>There is tremendous conflict between the theory of evolution and Christianity.<<

Tell that to billions of Catholics around the world. As I said, you are framing it improperly.

>>According to the Bible: (etc.)<<

Unless and until you are quoting the Bible in its original form, then you are interpreting an interpretation. The Bible is a spiritual guide, not a science textbook.

>>You can’t observe evolution, you can’t test it, you can’t repeat it and you can’t falsify it. Therefore it does not meet even one requirement of the Scientific Method.<<

Ever hear of a mutating virus (observational) or evolving species (flies in NY subways can’t mate with flies from the outside)? Ever dig up a modern horse skeleton in 50 million year old strata (falsifiable)?

Your statement is sadly incorrect.

>>Evolution says that there was nothing, then there was something, than there was an explosion, then there was a mud puddle, then a bunch of amino acids somehow got together and life began, then from that initial cell all of the species of plant, animal and human that exist today developed.<<

Evolution says nothing of the sort. You are speaking of abiogenesis. If you wish to invoke abiogenesis as a basis for your argument, I merely wish you to apply it to physics, chemistry and all the other natural sciences. The stars we see are not suns billions of miles away whose light we are now seeing from billions of years in the past but pretty lights for the amusement of our eyes and the confoundment (and trickery) of astronomers.

I shall not comment on this issue again except to say the following:

1) Religion is in the theology/philosophy region of thought.
2) Science (including TTOE) is in the observation/analytical region of thought.

Crossing the 2 regions inevitably leads to trouble — in fact, destruction for many.

I hardly know where to begin....

First of all, I know what abiogenesis is. It is life coming from non-life. Abiogenesis has never been observed. Proponents of the theory of evolution insist that at some point in the distant past it must have happened... because as you know evolution is true. This is taken on faith, because it is unobservable and violates natural law.

When I speak of evolution I am speaking of it as it is being taught in classrooms all across the country. The way I described it (which you disparaged) is exactly what it is being taught.

Evolutionists argue that evolution is “change”. If that’s their definition, then I’m an evolutionist. Unfortunately that is a canard to draw attention away from what is being taught, which is that whole explosion, mud puddle, amino acid deal.

I’ll address a few of your points specifically:

“Tell that to billions of Catholics around the world. As I said, you are framing it improperly.”

I’m framing it biblically.

The Bible says this:

Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

Romans 8:20-22 - 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

Scripture tells us that death entered the world through Adam and that all creation is in bondage because of his sin.
If evolution is true then there was a whole lot of death going on before Adam ever got here.

For a Bible-believing Christian, evolution (as taught in our schools) is an untenable position.

“Unless and until you are quoting the Bible in its original form, then you are interpreting an interpretation. The Bible is a spiritual guide, not a science textbook.”

The Bible is truth..... therefore when it does speak of science, what it says is true. If you study scripture you will find scientific facts that were written thousands of years before science ever got around to discovering them, including the Hydrologic Cycle, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the earth being a sphere and the Anthropic Principle.

“Ever hear of a mutating virus (observational) or evolving species (flies in NY subways can’t mate with flies from the outside)? Ever dig up a modern horse skeleton in 50 million year old strata (falsifiable)”

How exactly does a mutating virus prove evolution from pond scum to people?

Flies who can’t mate with each other.... they are still flies right? They haven’t changed into something else.

Your horse evolution example is interesting.... the so-called “Equine series” goes up and down strata, it is not a continuous series. The fossil record does way more to refute the theory of evolution than to verify it.

There are many “living fossils” around today. Species that have not changed in what we are told are millions of years.

“I shall not comment on this issue again except to say the following:

1) Religion is in the theology/philosophy region of thought.
2) Science (including TTOE) is in the observation/analytical region of thought.”

Not sure why you won’t comment again.... don’t you want to deal with my arguments? I enjoy a good discussion on this topic.

I will say this again. The theory of evolution is not science, it is philosophy. In fact, for the most part it flies in the face of observable science.

We are told that mutations and natural selection account for all of the species we see today, yet what is observed in science labs is that mutations add no genetic information and that natural selection can only select from existing traits. That being the case, from where does the “new” information come that is required for one species to evolve into another?

“Crossing the 2 regions inevitably leads to trouble — in fact, destruction for many.”

Ah yes..... here you have stumbled upon the truth.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.